Blatantly promotional, unsourced article about an organization. It could be notable, but I see no reason for the article in its current to remain on the mainspace. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Non-notable promo article. A google search only really yields self-published and primary sources. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 02:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Does the subject of this article meet the guidelines for notability for academics? Cannot find much independent or external references about her. Unsure if Deputy Director position confers notability but again limited search results aside from academic papers InsomniaOpossum (talk)
I've never attempted to invoke WP:TNT before, but I'm going to go ahead and try here, very cautiously. This is a stub article on a notable topic created by a user who has been blocked twice from creating new articles following their history of mass-creating short, poorly written, and poorly sourced stubs (like this one). There is absolutely nothing useful on this page or in its history. The sources are obviously inadequate for a medical topic. If someone wanted to improve this article, they would have to restart from scratch, and I mean that without a hint of exaggeration. Therefore, I am carefully suggesting we TNT this to encourage this to happen. To be clear, I understand that this is almost never a good reason to delete an article, and I understand that opposing views exist, such as WP:TNTTNT. Still, even after reading through opposing essays on the matter, this looks to be an extremely rare case where nothing associated with this article is salvageable (neither what's currently there nor in its history). I am fully expecting backlash over this, but I would like to emphasise that I wholeheartedly agree that using deletion as cleanup is almost always a bad thing. This is an extremely uncommon case where the entire article is unusable. All that said, and while I myself don't feel qualified enough to do so, if anyone else had the time to improve this, I would withdraw my nomination immediately, as again, notability is not the problem. Anonymous 02:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Looking at the given sources:
All in all, out of 17 references, exactly zero provide secondary, independent SIGCOV, making this a very likely WP:GNG failure. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
No WP:LASTING effects apart of Wikipedia mirrors, thus fails WP:NOTNEWS. Protoeus (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Non-notable history denier. Few sources on google search, all of them more than 5 years old; this raises the prospect that the subject's notoriety was short-lived and has not endured. YouTube channel has fewer than 20K subscribers; most videos less than 5 years old have fewer than 500 views. There is mention in the Reuters source of one or more videos with over 300,000 views; however, it is not on the YouTube channel, and no other reference to this purported video could be located. Risker (talk) 00:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Promotional biography of a "social reputation analyst"; appears to have been constructed as WP:ADMASQ by an editor later blocked for sockpuppetry. Sources do not support notability under any criterion. They are:
Nothing else was found in BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Student newspaper of one college. Relies on Primary sources. Research has found no other significant sources.Fails WP:NNEWSPAPER Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Two unreleased films that fail to establish notability. The first film may have been unfinished, which is why it is listed here as a short film [30]. The first film was also incorrectly listed on the 2008 list of films, but the sources were emerging in mid-December 2008 and a release seemed unlikely [31].
In an attempt to salvage, the film article I added information about the second unreleased film, all passing mentions.
Source | Reliable? | Significant? | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
Indiaglitz [32] | See Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force#Guidelines on sources. | ||
Filmibeat [33] |
Although, I find this database site dubious [34] Kailash29792 assured me of its usefulness for Malayalam cinema. It lists all of the released films and some unreleased films. While it lists the 2017 version as unreleased (first with a pink U and then with [ പുറത്തിറങ്ങാത്ത ചിത്രം ] (transl. [Unreleased film]), it has no mention of the 2008 film, so without a doubt that film was never released. Without proper sourcing, redirect to Dileep filmography, the only page where it is mentioned. DareshMohan (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Does not seem to meet WP:NACTOR. Two films are not on Wikipedia. Only source present is "top 10 pictures with sister" and her sister is not covered on Wikipedia either. Besides that, anything I could find is either not reliable or independent. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
This subject may be worthy of an article, but this writing isn’t yet an article. Nuke, draftify or something, but get it from mainspace. Qwirkle (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Can't find anything that suggests Morag McLaren is notable. The only source in the article is very weak. Guiy de Montfort de L'Amaury 00:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)